Rename stream in Rails Event Store with zero downtime

Rename stream in Rails Event Store with zero downtime

A question has been posted on our Arkency’s slack today:

How to rename stream in event store? Is link & delete_stream enough to do it? Asking for a friend ;)

At first it looks quite easy. Sure, we can! Just link add events from source stream to target stream, then change publisher to write to new stream and use delete_stream method of Rails Event Store to remove old stream.

Ahhh, and of course we must handle incoming domain events, with zero downtime.

And now where the fun begins :)

Naive approach

The concept is still the same:

  1. link all events from source stream to target stream
  2. switch publisher to write to target stream
  3. delete source stream

But having publisher constantly writing to source stream creates a few problems to handle.

Source stream could not be just switched to target stream when all source stream’s events are linked to target stream. There could be a race condition and after we link last event and switch publisher to target stream new domain events could be published in source stream. This of course will be bad as we could lose some domain events.

Catchup subscription FTW

So let’s use catchup subscription to … you know… catch up with source stream and only then switch to the target stream.

This time concept is:

  1. publisher is constantly publishing new domain events to a stream, which is defined in some data store,
  2. catchup subscription reads a chunk of events from source stream (never read too much, some streams might have a lot of events), and then:
    • if there are more events in source stream, link them to target stream and fetch next chunk of events
    • if the subscription is caught up with source stream (we have both streams with the same events) then do the switch of stream in publisher’s data store. Since now publisher will be writing to the target stream
  3. delete source stream

Race conditions again

But there is a catch. Race condition. Or I should say race conditions. There are moments in code execution where we still miss some domain events.

  • after we catchup with source stream and before we make the switch new events might be published in source stream,
  • publisher might fetch current stream from data store and then catchup process can make the switch, this time publisher will still write to source stream, and we will miss some events again

Get yourself a lock!

We need to have a lock on 2 critical operations here. First while fetching source stream events and making a switch of target stream on catchup process. And second while publisher fetches current stream from data store and writes new events to it.

Code spike to demonstrate this concept

I’ve spent some time today to experiment how to implement this with the Rails Event Store. Or actually with Ruby Event Store. I do not need Rails for that, just pure Ruby.

Let’s setup some basic objects

require 'ruby_event_store'

event_store =

FooEvent =

This code will create a new instance of RubyEventStore::Client using in memory repository and NullMapper just to skip some friction. Then it defines a sample domain event class.

So now our publisher (simulated):

def publish(stream)
  index = 0
  while(true) do
    stream.publish( {index: index}))
    puts "#{index} published to stream: #{stream}"
    sleep(Random.rand(1.1) / TIME_UNIT)
    index += 1

Is just a method that constantly publishes a new domain event (with index) to some stream. The stream here will be the most interesting part here.

Then the catchup process:

def catchup(stream)
  processed = nil
    events = stream.catchup(processed)
    break if events.empty?
    events.each do |event|
      puts "#{[:index]} linked to stream: target"
    processed = events.last.event_id
    sleep(Random.rand(1.0) / TIME_UNIT)

As described it fetches some events from source stream and links them to target stream. It stops when there is nothing more to read from source stream.

Please notice the difference in:

# publish
    sleep(Random.rand(1.1) / TIME_UNIT)

# catchup
    sleep(Random.rand(1.0) / TIME_UNIT)

To give a catchup process a chance to finally catchup with source stream it must process events a little faster than they are published by publisher. A TIME_UNIT is just a constant to define how fast you want this experiment to process events.

publish = {publish(stream)}
puts "Starting catchup thread"
catchup = {catchup(stream)}

puts "Catchup thread done"
puts "Publish thread done"

puts "Source stream:"
puts (source_events ="source").map{|x|[:index]}).inspect
puts "Target stream:"
puts (target_events ="target").map{|x|[:index]}).inspect

raise "FAIL"  unless target_events[0, source_events.size] == source_events
puts "DONE - now remove source stream"

To check if the me experimental code works I start 2 threads. First will be the publisher (executing the publish method). Second will be the catchup process (executing the catchup method). Before catchup process starts it will wait for some time - just to let publisher write some events to source stream. Then after catchup thread is finished I will wait again some time to let publisher publish a few more events - this time to target stream.

And finally some assertion to check if target stream starts with all events from source stream.

The StreamSwitcher

class StreamSwitch
  def initialize(event_store, source, target, lock:
    @event_store = event_store
    @current = source
    @source = source
    @target = target
    @lock = lock

  def publish(event)
    @lock.synchronize do
      @event_store.publish(event, stream_name: @current)

  def catchup(processed)
    @lock.synchronize do
      scope =
      scope = scope.from(processed) if processed
      events = scope.to_a
      change if events.empty?

  def link(event), stream_name: @target)

  def to_s

  def change
    @current = @target

Here is the logic. The publish, catchup & link methods are called by publisher & catchup threads. The publish will always write domain event to current stream. Notice that it uses the synchronized block to avoid race conditions. The same lock is used by catchup method to avoid race condition where we read source stream and - if there is no more events to link - do the change of current stream.

Real life problems

I’ve used a Mutex class here to synchronize critical operations - but this is only experimental code, not production ready. In real life scenario the lock should depend on what kind of EventRepository you are using in your system. If you store your domain events in SQL database consider named locks to implement a synchronization.

There is still a race condition that some events may be skipped or added out of order when there are the events currently published in other transactions, which has not yet finished when catchup process has went through them.

The result

Here sample execution for TIME_UNIT = 10.0:

~/arkency$ ruby rename-stream.rb
0 published to stream: source
1 published to stream: source
2 published to stream: source
3 published to stream: source
4 published to stream: source
5 published to stream: source
6 published to stream: source
Starting catchup thread
0 linked to stream: target
1 linked to stream: target
2 linked to stream: target
3 linked to stream: target
4 linked to stream: target
5 linked to stream: target
6 linked to stream: target
Catchup thread done
7 published to stream: target
8 published to stream: target
9 published to stream: target
10 published to stream: target
11 published to stream: target
12 published to stream: target
13 published to stream: target
14 published to stream: target
15 published to stream: target
Publish thread done
Source stream:
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
Target stream:
[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]
DONE - now remove source stream

Looks very simple. But play a bit with it. It looks much more interesting when TIME_UNIT = 100000.0.

Now you could finally remove the source stream:


BTW Neither link nor delete_stream does not affect any domain event in any way. Stream is just a grouping mechanism for domain events. Once you write domain event to event store it could not be deleted (at least not without use of rails console :P).

Make your own experiments

Code is fun! Go play with it! Here is the source of code spike for this blog post.

Struggling to apply DDD concepts to your Rails app?

For a few years we’ve been studying Domain-Driven Design and applying its techniques in our projects. In this book we describe techniques that you can use in new and old Rails apps to achieve better architecture. They were useful to us and we are sure they are going to be useful for you.

Click here to read more!

Domain-Driven Rails

There is more... check out other books published by us

You might also like